I sort of feel like the 55mph deal was an excuse for the govt to rake
in more bucks from tickets. Yes, it was in response to the fuel problem
(crisis), and the other argument was it made the freeways safer because
of the lower speeds. Since then, part 2 has been proven incorrect, since
the deaths per mile have dropped significantly since the speed limits
were raised. As for part 1, since then, the automobiles themselves have
become far more efficient, and probably burn less gas at 70 mph than the
70s cars did at 55.
Remember the cars that were built in the late 70s that had speedometers
that pegged at 85 mph? So you could be toodling down the freeway at an
indicated 85mph and really be going much faster. :) "Officer, the speedo
read 85."
--Pat Kelly
Giles Douglas wrote:
>
> Doesn't it depend on the car (and more importantly, its weight and drag
> coeffecient?) But in general, I thought it was like 55mph (or used to be),
> which is why the US speed limits were set at that during the 70s oil
> crisis.
>
> Giles
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Phil Esra wrote:
>
> > miscellaneous musing:
> >
> > I was just wondering, and thought maybe someone here would know. What is the
> > most fuel efficient speed to drive at? My guess is that it would be at
> > whatever speed you're in your highest gear with the engine turning as slowly
> > as possible. But is wind resistance great enough that that's not true? Any
> > thoughts?
> >
> > phil
> >
> > (ps--got the bearing replaced, thanks for all the advice--made it home over
> > the bridge with no drama--had to replace the hub too, $492, ouch...)
> > _________________________________________________________________
|